Comments

Loved the interview and to be honest the sexiest thing about him was his genuine honesty and openness. I've met plenty of good-looking men whose personality is so disappointing. The interviewer had a gorgeous smile too.

This is really disappointing. I find it interesting that he figures that race (and sexual stereo-typing) had nothing to do with this commercial--I'm not so sure whoever sought him out for this commercial figured the same thing.

In any case, the commercial was unsuccessful in its over the top homo-eroticism and its blatant sexual provocation. It was not funny nor was it cleverly executed.

Furthermore, why would he do this for FREE?! SMH.

He is handsome and, at least, articulate. I just wish he had more where it counts (between his ears).

@Occam's Razor. The commercials are independently made. Doritos held a contest where people make and send in their commercial and they review them and place them on their website where you can vote for the best. And if I'm not mistaken the ones with the highest votes air on the superbowl.

I liked the interview. this is black gay network should we not be glad that it exists and downplay the interview instead because it not done by gay media we are personally more comfortable with. I always thought kendell hogan was gay when I watched the workout shows on espn.. he still looks good

I don't get it. Why would a Doritos ad be done for free when the superbowl was sponsored by Doritos? not familiar with the ad world, is this how commercial spots are done; you present the project to the company and they decide whether or not to pick it up? At any rate, if anyone chooses to ignore the play on stereotypes in that Ad, then we are in a worse predicament than I thought.

Sometimes freelance directors with little or no money do Doritos commercials in hopes of selling/getting national play, however, it is done independently of the company and Doritos can choose to buy it or not which is why King made the comment he did. And often actors do free gigs for the publicity which is sometimes worth more in the long run.

Both Doritos (and Pepsi Max) ran a "Crash The Superbowl" contest where people submitted commercials for free to get them to air during the Superbowl,.that's why the director had little money.

@Occam's Razor,

What's disappointing is your inability to let go of racial and sexual stereotypes. Sometimes the muscular actor just happens to be black, and not selected from a huge pool of free actors (he's a personal trainer) to perpetuate any longstanding stereotype. Had you used your ears and what's between them you'd realize he did it for free as a favor to a client and and drop of research would bring up the Crash The Superbowl campaign where amateur and independent producers submitted commercials to Doritos. The guy had little/no money to pay him. Luckily he wasn't only out for money like you would have been and as a result got the subsequent exposure.

Only good things can come to this man as a result of the publicity. I hope his personal training business blows up!

As for the commercial's success, I say you're wrong again. While in your opinion it may not have been funny or cleverly executed, that's rarely the end goal of a commercial. Ads don't make you run out and buy Doritos because they were so clever and funny and you're sitting at home with no chips and nowhere to turn, ads create brand awareness, so when you're in the supermarket you'll remember Doritos. Clearly with the amount of press this ad is getting, both good and bad, the brand Doritos will be on everyone's mind when they are in the shopping aisles. That's a win in advertising.

i just don't get some of you people. what do you want from media? as it is, there is literally no or little exposure of african-american gay men in a positive light, and then you have the unmitigated gall and nerve to dissect this cute little commercial to hell and back.

the brother is gorgeous and the commercial is funny. what's not to like? what difference would it have made if both the actors had been african-american?

how about directing some of this misdirected anger at b.e.t. who in over twenty years of being on air has never dedicated any energy or inclination toward perpetuating positive african-american gay portrayals.

Well I love that someone would call him "a dainty white boy" lol the guy isn't a small built guy he's got some muscle on him too he's just not as big as the other actor. I didn't think this was a bad commercial when I first saw it and I still don't, as the guy in the interview said, people need to just lighten up.

Although, in much of your response I can agree to disagree, I would like to address two things.

First: letting go of stereo-types has very little to do with "my" ability or anyone else's. The point is, stereotypes do exist and they do (rightly or wrongly) influence people's actions and they play an extraordinary role in people's decision-making process (in an ad commercial no less!). There's not an enterprise more aware of or sensitive to this fact than that of advertising and commercialism. Though YOU do not suffer from an "inability to let go of stereotypes," most people suffer these stereotypes when they do not (knowingly or unknowingly) perpetuate them. Furthermore, I think it is naive (and dangerous) to avoid confrontations with stereotype; it is harmful to not be able to (or to willfully refuse to) recognize stereotyping at work.

The fact is race and sexuality DO inform this commercial piece. Otherwise, the ad would not have been the "controversial" piece it is. Race does exist. Sexuality does exist. And the denotative and connotative meanings and implications of each do fuse to from a stereo-type. Race and sexuality vigorously play themselves out in the images, context, pretext, subtext, and tone of this commercial. For example: If the commercial had remained the same, but paired two Black men, an entirely different commercial message would emerge; it would spark other kinds of conversations and "controversies". A bag of Doritos would be secondary to that kind of provocation (as it is in this one!).

Second: Which (Doritos) commercial does not aim to be funny or well executed? Whether it achieves success or not is another matter. It is the dream of every advertising executive/company/campaign/team for his/their commercial to be remembered as being funny and/or well executed. Those are the only commercials that anyone remembers! I'm prepared to be corrected on this point. However, in THIS commercial there WERE attempts at humor and cleverness in its execution. These attempts failed (mainly because of the forceful advertising/use of race and sexuality as context)--and may have been besides the point.

I did hear Mr King, and got that his participation was a favor to his friend. It is, however, my personal view that ANY time a Black man (or anyone else) uses his (near-nude, sexualized) body for the sale or advertising of a product, he ought be paid for it!

You damned if you do and damned if you don't. If a brotha pulls a Sidney or Denzel he is considered to be projecting "the refined Negro" image for Western-Euro appeasement. If he provokes sexuality in anyway(especially if he is fine, he is the oversexed buck) and if he comes from a poor upbringing he is labeled "a Thug". IT IS A COMMERCIAL not a commentary on the black male. If Doritos and Soft Drinks are fucking up anything besides our health, then we have serious issues. I see more harm being fed our communities by "black" corporations that don't need to be named and for the record who gives a damn what white people or any other group thinks. You don't have to tap dance to eat off their table, prepare your own.

@ Occam’s Razor: Yes, the advertisement plays on stereotypes, but in the end, the joke is on the viewer who holds the stereotype. That is quite different from an ad that deliberately reinforces negative stereotypes.

@ GeeGee: I have to agree with JinCA on this. Here, I thought I was watching an ad with two hunks in a sauna, and then you tell me one of them is Thumbelina? I guess we have very different ideas of “dainty.”